All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Carlo Szelinsky <github@szelinsky.de>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>,
	Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Carlo Szelinsky <github@szelinsky.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: mdio: treat PSE EPROBE_DEFER as non-fatal during PHY registration
Date: Sun,  5 Apr 2026 20:57:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260405185730.3937952-1-github@szelinsky.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6185f9d8-dabe-4190-b020-711e3a046e64@lunn.ch>

Hi Andrew,

So I went and looked at whether we can just let EPROBE_DEFER do its
thing here, like you suggested.

From what I can tell, the issue is where it happens.
fwnode_mdiobus_register_phy() gets called during the MDIO bus scan in
__of_mdiobus_parse_phys(), and if any PHY returns -EPROBE_DEFER there,
the whole scan bails out - none of the PHYs on that bus get registered.
So you'd lose all networking on that bus just because one PHY's PSE
controller isn't ready yet.

I also dug into the timing question you raised. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but from what I see the deferred probe timeout is 10s and
regulator_late_cleanup fires at 30s, so the ordering would actually
work out - the consumer would get to claim the regulator before
cleanup kills it. It's more the bus level collateral damage that
seemed like the real problem to me.

That's basically why I ended up treating EPROBE_DEFER as non-fatal
for PSE during PHY registration and doing lazy resolution instead.
The admin_state_synced flag then covers the window between PSE
controller probe and whenever the lazy resolution actually happens.

But I might be looking at this the wrong way - would you rather we
defer the whole bus and accept that trade-off? Or does the lazy
approach seem reasonable for this case? Happy to hear if you have
a different idea entirely.

Cheers,
Carlo

  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-05 18:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-29 16:10 [PATCH 0/3] net: pse-pd: support module-based PSE controller drivers Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-29 16:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] net: mdio: treat PSE EPROBE_DEFER as non-fatal during PHY registration Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 11:16   ` Kory Maincent
2026-03-29 16:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] net: pse-pd: prevent regulator cleanup from disabling unclaimed PSE PIs Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 11:17   ` Kory Maincent
2026-03-29 16:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] net: pse-pd: add lazy PSE control resolution for modular drivers Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 11:23   ` Kory Maincent
2026-03-30 11:09 ` [PATCH 0/3] net: pse-pd: support module-based PSE controller drivers Kory Maincent
2026-03-30 13:29 ` [PATCH net-next v2 " Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 13:29   ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] net: pse-pd: prevent regulator cleanup from disabling unclaimed PSE PIs Carlo Szelinsky
2026-04-01  2:28     ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-04-06 10:22     ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-03-30 13:29   ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: pse-pd: add lazy PSE control resolution for modular drivers Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 13:29   ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: mdio: treat PSE EPROBE_DEFER as non-fatal during PHY registration Carlo Szelinsky
2026-03-30 14:11     ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-03 13:31       ` Carlo Szelinsky
2026-04-03 13:38         ` Kory Maincent
2026-04-06  8:42           ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-04-07  9:31             ` Kory Maincent
2026-04-03 15:16         ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-05 18:57           ` Carlo Szelinsky [this message]
2026-04-06  9:30             ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-04-06 12:22               ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-06 14:12                 ` Oleksij Rempel
2026-04-07  9:40                   ` Kory Maincent
2026-04-06 12:42             ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-06 14:43               ` Carlo Szelinsky
2026-04-06 15:21                 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-08 21:07                   ` Carlo Szelinsky
2026-04-08 21:56                     ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-09 12:30                     ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-09 13:09                       ` Kory Maincent
2026-04-09 15:34                         ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-09 16:08                           ` Russell King (Oracle)
2026-04-09 19:54                             ` Andrew Lunn
2026-04-13  9:28                               ` Kory Maincent

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260405185730.3937952-1-github@szelinsky.de \
    --to=github@szelinsky.de \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=kory.maincent@bootlin.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=o.rempel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.